TW3 was really iterative so CDPR could focus on what they are good at. World building, characterization, writing, quest design etc. The game's qualities are below it's surface layer. With CP2077 they made something they have zero experience in, an open world first person shooter with upgrade trees and hacking abilities. They hyped it to high heaven and marketed into something it isn't all the while development focused on high-end PCs and ignored the last-gen issues. The situation with TW3 was really quite different.Isn't that exactly how wicther 3 worked? Three main quests (that are just thinly veiled excuse to force you to go to the three main hub to do side quest) and then end game.
I gotta say, as someone who thought witcher 3 wasn't anything special, I'm kinda baffled that cyberpunk reception is so iffy when the two seems incredibly similar:
-Incredibly buggy launch.
-Poor main story that mostly exist to get you to do side quest.
-Large empty world devoid of activity.
-Repetitive quest design that boil down to fetch or kill quest.
Yet somehow all of this is either ignored or forgiven in the case of witcher 3. I wonder if maybe a lot more people are playing cyberpunk at launch and when they played witcher 3 long after release and so are more annoyed with the bug?
My criticism of TW3 is actually the reverse, that the main quest is too long and bloated and that you could cut out the first three main quest threads about finding Ciri and get a much more focused main quest about what the game really wants to be about: Ciri's destiny and the impending Great Frost. Because TW3 only really starts once you find Ciri. At that point you need to find allies, investigate the Wild Hunt and find a way to defeat them and stop the Great Frost. After those 3 quest lines you still have at least 20 hours of story to go and something like 16-17 of those have you be able to access the open world stuff.Isn't that exactly how wicther 3 worked? Three main quests (that are just thinly veiled excuse to force you to go to the three main hub to do side quest) and then end game.
I played both at release and your criticism of TW3 is pretty spot on. As I've said many times before in regards to TW3's open world: It absolutely nails atmosphere and the feeling that it is a lived in place, but it is very barren and static outside of the icons. It is not a Rockstar open world and even Bethesda's open worlds are more living and reactive then either TW3 or CP77.Yet somehow all of this is either ignored or forgiven in the case of witcher 3. I wonder if maybe a lot more people are playing cyberpunk at launch and when they played witcher 3 long after release and so are more annoyed with the bug?
Yeah I thought that montage was weirdly out of place too. Like, I’m not even there yet game, and you’re going to ruin my sense of arriving in this amazing city with a flash of flaunting what I’m about to do before I’ve even decided on doing it?Got to try a bit of the game pre-patched recently, out of sheer morbid curiosity. Chose Nomad intro, with the assumption I'd get to play the outsider...you know, building trust and relationships with total strangers in an unknown city. The game, however, had other ideas, so yeeted the poor "nomad" experience right out the window by insta-friending you with some dude, then cutting out 6 months of all that "building trust with strangers in an unknown city" with a jaunty montage of you being BFFs with every dealer and mole around, while funneling you into this implied brotherhood with the friend you've only just met (in reality), so they can pull a thing where they're trying to make you feel an emotion from this attachment, but it's not formed properly or even much at all, so the earnest music swelling and the eager voice performances are bouncing off a massive "but y tho?"
First glitch was a few seconds in, when my character pulled a big wired plug out of a car engine to put another plug in, but the first plug model forgot to disappear, so the new wired plug went through the model like a boring mirage. What was your first like??
If that's true then that's a very strange progression from a narrative point.So, I apparently just hit the Point of No Return quest. The thing is, it comes way too soon in a narrative sense. Without spoiling (but if you don't want any spoilers as to the narrative structure, stop reading here): After the prologue is done and the main story is a go you get three different leads to pursue to find out more about the Gizmo that's driving the plot. You do these three and find out more about it and what you need to do to save the day... and then it is end game! The problem is that it feels as if there's a whole act missing, in which you use the knowledge you have acquired to work your way towards the end. Instead you go straight for the big resolution.
It really is one of those things that makes you realize that CP77 must have been a real disaster of a development, because it is giving me the same vibes as Malachor V from KOTOR2. No doubt there must have been more content in the middle that got scrapped, because if you go straight for main quest only, I doubt you'd be even halfway to the level cap.
How would Keanu Reeves fit into this then?If that's true then that's a very strange progression from a narrative point.
The game opens up only once your character is dying and has an in-universe time limit. It doesn't make sense for V to be driving around doing gigs for fixers, hunting down cyberpsychos, looking for Delamain's cars and dealing with gang turf wars when he/she is supposed to be trying to figure out a way to survive the shard.
I started the game as a Nomad, got into the city, and then there's a cutscene of all the things that happened in the next 6 months. That time period should have been playable. That's when you should have been building up fixer connections, doing jobs, learning about the gangs, building your relationship with Jackie, etc. Once the heist happens that's when railroading you into the main quest would have worked better thematically.
The game opens up at the point where it makes the least amount of sense for the narrative, and then based on what you've said it seems to close up again.
It really is. It got even worse when I realized I had like 2-3 side missions that seemed fun left to do before the PONR, so I went to do one of them and the following hour or so was seemingly back to back calls from people offering me new side missions. In theory I like the way they've made a lot of side missions nested and unfolding so that you get these self-contained storylines unfolding over the course of a few hours and how some side missions branch off into multiple ones. In practice, the main missions are too few and several side missions are gated behind one or more main missions in a way that means you can end up in my situation, where you have one main mission left to do, few side missions in your journal and suddenly get a handful of new side missions dumped on you if you just dally around. For someone who looks at their journal and only see boring side quests (Beat on the Brat), they'll be able to cross the PONR without realizing they've missed out on a lot of premium side missions.If that's true then that's a very strange progression from a narrative point.
He wouldn't. =PHow would Keanu Reeves fit into this then?
Definitely agree with that. The side content doesn't flow with the urgency of the main quest. More open world games have that problem of course but here it actually actively undermines it. Probably also have to do with the low completion figures of TW3's main quest as CDPR mentioned. They wanted to have a shorter main quest that really grabbed player's attention not realizing it would break the internal consistency of the game's design and it's emphasis on side quests.He wouldn't. =P
I think that's really the problem with CP77's narrative arc versus how it wants you to play it. The main narrative is all about urgency, but the game wants you to take it slow and do side content. It feels really weird to have a cutscene that really amps up the stakes and makes it seem as if you only have hours, at the most, to find a way to resolve the main mission... And then walk off and faff about for a week or more of in game time because of all the side content you haven't done.
Yeah, one of the comments over at Shamus Young's blog pointed out how weird it is that all the gigs are handcrafted encounters made to accommodate almost any playstyle. They are all like smaller Immersive Sim levels with plenty of options to reach the objective and are quite a treat to do because of it. But why? In a game already plagued by issues and a time pressure to release on time, why spend so much content and level designer time and effort on tiny side activities that most players will likely just blow past?Besides Keanu I doubt if the open world was really such a good idea anyway. It's the reason of the game's performance issues and it only has a handful of worthwhile side quests anyway that they could have easily parked in a smaller, setpiece driven hub world without all the extraneous fluff. None of what would make this a '100+ hour RPG' is actually any good and only undermines what actually is good about the game.
Because i bet the PC version was "ready" way earlier than the console ports where most of the issues lie. And adding new sidequests without new models/items/mechanics is something people can do who can't help with the porting. And if a short, selfcontained sidequest is not ready for launch, you can ship the game without it.Yeah, one of the comments over at Shamus Young's blog pointed out how weird it is that all the gigs are handcrafted encounters made to accommodate almost any playstyle. They are all like smaller Immersive Sim levels with plenty of options to reach the objective and are quite a treat to do because of it. But why? In a game already plagued by issues and a time pressure to release on time, why spend so much content and level designer time and effort on tiny side activities that most players will likely just blow past?
He'd be in the second half of the game.How would Keanu Reeves fit into this then?